What Sachin Tendulkar has that Don Bradman didn’t - Atherton

[Malcolm Merlyn]

That is a rubbish argument - you initially said that Bradman's high average is because of his familiarity with the opposition and when I questioned why the bowlers did not benefit from the familiarity you bring along fielding positions - how many catches does a sweeper take in Tests anyways? And even if I accept your argument are you trying to imply that guys like Hutton and Hammond were as good as Agarkar and Harbhajan with the bat, because obviously we would have to deduct the same degree from their performance as from Bradman's?

the bowlers are more easy to be found out eg:Mendis and saqlain after their 1st test series againist india...also akhtar 2.The fielding was poorer then it is today 3.Patriotic umpiring and 90% runs againist the same opposition 4.Close decisions like run out catches stumped not given 5.He didnt play againist quality spinners in subcontinent........numerous batsman have fared well in theri home conditions or similar to home conditions but have struggled againist quality spin on turning tracks....eg:Ponting He may have still avgd 99 in todays time also we dont know........but the above reasons sure go againist him........if i would have to choose batsmen or players above sachin then it may be Sobers.............or may be richards

[vvvslaxman]

Why not? Each era is progressively better than the previous one. Its evolution.

That is because you don't have any base to compare. For instance in 2000s more batsmen average 50 plus average than any other decade in any era. From Samaraweeras to Mohammad Yousufs. It is not that hard nowadays. They average more than some of the very good batsman of the 80s. It won't make them better players. Raw stats should be tossed aside. Peers are the best judge of players. Fact that they had to have a devious plan just for one guy explain his greatness. Even Sachin won't admit your argument.

[The Outsider]

@ sunny, ^ Most of your reasons can be turned around the other way - can you give a more balanced post?

[vvvslaxman]

Why not? Each era is progressively better than the previous one. Its evolution.

You mean Samaraweera is better than Richards/gavaskar? average more than them.

[Guest Gunner]

That is a rubbish argument - you initially said that Bradman's high average is because of his familiarity with the opposition and when I questioned why the bowlers did not benefit from the familiarity you bring along fielding positions - how many catches does a sweeper take in Tests anyways?

I maintain my argument that he played the same opposition often resulting in an advantage, there is no change to that. You asked my why didn't the bowlers benefit and clearly that was because of poor tactics and fielding, why is that a rubbish argument? Is it untrue? Sweepers may not catch anything but they stop boundaries don't they? I think the number of runs conceded also hurts a bowler's average. That remark was made in that particular sense.

And even if I accept your argument are you trying to imply that guys like Hutton and Hammond were as good as Agarkar and Harbhajan with the bat' date=' because obviously we would have to deduct the same degree from their performance as from Bradman's?[/quote'] My argument was not made on the basis of statistics so I don't know why you would like to compare Hutton and Harbhajan. Secondly, I am not trying to apply a discount factor across the board for all players of that era. My point was that Bradman though clearly better than his peers and a great player would not have averaged the same in a different era due to the specific reasons I gave earlier.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@ sunny' date=' ^ Most of your reasons can be turned around the other way - can you give a more balanced post?[/quote'] well i rate richards and sobers higher than bradman..........leave every other reason........the one and only reason i wll give if i have to give one...is that they scored runs againist spinners on turning subcontinental tracks and made runs againist all opposition in different countries....Bradman unfortunately didnt get to do that...whether he could or he couldnot is up for judgement.Bradman was a great batsman.....but the greatest because he avgd 99.....well i dont buy that.......Sobers and Richards are higher than him for me at least EDIT:Professor please turn around my reasons.....i just gave a few reasons why he isnt the greatest.........but yes he avgs 99,score 29 centuries in 50 odd matches,played on un covered pithches,no protection,no limit on short bowling etc.........but i have my reasons not to rate him as the greatest.

[Guest Gunner]

That is because you don't have any base to compare. For instance in 2000s more batsmen average 50 plus average than any other decade in any era. From Samaraweeras to Mohammad Yousufs. It is not that hard nowadays. They average more than some of the very good batsman of the 80s. It won't make them better players. Raw stats should be tossed aside. Peers are the best judge of players. Fact that they had to have a devious plan just for one guy explain his greatness. Even Sachin won't admit your argument.

You mean Samaraweera is better than Richards/gavaskar? average more than them.

Have you heard of the "standard candle" as a distance measurement technique in cosmology? :P The pitches have eased out making it easier for average players to score a lot of runs, I admit that. If Bradman's measure of towering over his opposition was his average surely for Tendulkar it must be the sheer weight of his runs and the number of centuries he has scored. Sachin's average is driven down by the haste involved in the modern game, computer aided analysis and better fielding and strategy. The measure ment of greatness for this era has just been redefined. Despite evolution improving the overall standards of a generation there will always be cretins in each one. SO I would suggest not to focus on the cretins and laggards.

[The Outsider]

well i rate richards and sobers higher than bradman..........leave every other reason........the one and only reason i wll give if i have to give one...is that they scored runs againist spinners on turning subcontinental tracks and made runs againist all opposition in different countries....Bradman unfortunately didnt get to do that...whether he could or he couldnot is up for judgement.Bradman was a great batsman.....but the greatest because he avgd 99.....well i dont buy that.......Sobers and Richards are higher than him for me at least

Which spinners did Richards score against? The only good leg spinner of his times, Qadir, used to regularly have him and his batting line up in trouble. Richards might well have averaged in the 30s against Warne, Kumble, and Murali. And Bradman averaged the same in FC cricket as well, batting against the likes of Grimmett and O'Reily who would rank amongst the best spinners of all time - just because he did not face great spinners at the test level doesn't mean he would have failed against them.

[The Outsider]

I maintain my argument that he played the same opposition often resulting in an advantage, there is no change to that. You asked my why didn't the bowlers benefit and clearly that was because of poor tactics and fielding, why is that a rubbish argument? Is it untrue? Sweepers may not catch anything but they stop boundaries don't they? I think the number of runs conceded also hurts a bowler's average. That remark was made in that particular sense.

And the only argument that you have for bowlers not averaging in the teens due to familiarity is fielding positions? Even if I was a rich man, I wouldn't buy that.

My argument was not made on the basis of statistics so I don't know why you would like to compare Hutton and Harbhajan. Secondly, I am not trying to apply a discount factor across the board for all players of that era. My point was that Bradman though clearly better than his peers and a great player would not have averaged the same in a different era due to the specific reasons I gave earlier.

Perhaps, he would not have averaged 99.94, but there is enough to suggest that he would have been the stand out performer in any era as he was in the era in which he actually played in.

[Anakin]

Have fun trying to convince anyone of that.

At least I won't have to convince Donald, who arguably was a better bowler than most if not all DGB faced.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Which spinners did Richards score against? The only good leg spinner of his times, Qadir, used to regularly have him and his batting line up in trouble. Richards might well have averaged in the 30s against Warne, Kumble, and Murali. And Bradman averaged the in FC cricket as well, batting against the likes of Grimmett and O'Reily who would rank amongst the best spinners of all time - just because he did not face great spinners at the test level doesn't mean he would have failed against them.

Richards scored in India as well and aganist english spinners also........ Grimmet o reilly better than murali warne? he avgs 200 and 178 againist inda and SA minnows of that time may be???? What Bradman could have done is as i said up for judgement lets see what he has done.....well i said for me the only player above SRT if i have to choose is Sobers.........and he is better than Bradman..... i never say he isnt great....he is greater than most.....but not the greatest

[vvvslaxman]

Have you heard of the "standard candle" as a distance measurement technique in cosmology? :P The pitches have eased out making it easier for average players to score a lot of runs, I admit that. If Bradman's measure of towering over his opposition was his average surely for Tendulkar it must be the sheer weight of his runs and the number of centuries he has scored. Sachin's average is driven down by the haste involved in the modern game, computer aided analysis and better fielding and strategy. The measure ment of greatness for this era has just been redefined. Despite evolution improving the overall standards of a generation there will always be cretins in each one. SO I would suggest not to focus on the cretins and laggards.

What is the definition of modern greatness?

[Mr. Wicket]

Grimmet o reilly better than murali warne?

Possibly. Certainly in the same league. Read up a bit about these two greats. Spin flourished greatly at that time, and there were other superb bowlers like the frequently-ignored Bert Ironmonger (what a record, and without Grimmett and O'Reilly he surely would have played a LOT more tests) and England's Hedley Verity. None of whom really bothered Bradman...

[The Outsider]

Richards scored in India as well and aganist english spinners also........ Grimmet o reilly better than murali warne? he avgs 200 and 178 againist inda and SA minnows of that time may be???? What Bradman could have done is as i said up for judgement lets see what he has done.....well i said for me the only player above SRT if i have to choose is Sobers.........and he is better than Bradman.....

What Indian and English spinners did Richards score against - for most of his career we used to field a washed up quartet, and the likes of Doshi, Shastri, and Arshad Ayub as spinners. Heck, on a turning track Richards and his side were like headless chickens even against Hirwani. Grimmett and O'Reilly are rated amongst the best all time spinners - they obviously won't have the number of wickets as modern bowlers but even Benaud who saw them in action ranks them no lesser than Warne.

[vvvslaxman]

Andy Flower averages 117 in India Younis Khan averages 76 in India If Bradman had faced Ishant, RP singh, Nehra he would be averaging 250 :cantstop:

[Mr. Wicket]

Grimmett and O'Reilly are rated amongst the best all time spinners - they obviously won't have the number of wickets as modern bowlers but even Benaud who saw them in action ranks them no lesser than Warne.

I will add a little bit to this. Grimmett was a revolutionary spinner; developed the 'flipper' and was the first bowler to really use it as a weapon. In those days, without technology providing 1000 slow mo replays and bowling analyses, it would have been a serious challenge trying to pick a brand new delivery like that (heck, look initially how much trouble batsmen had with Saqlain or Murali's doosra or Mendis' "carrom ball" the moment those were innovated today). O'Reilly's control was legendary. It is worth noting that he played in the other great age for batting with the likes of Hutton, Ponsford, Hammond, Paynter, etc also enjoying the benefit of timeless tests and tracks/a batting mentality that also allowed games to go 7-8+ days at times. Despite that, he still has a bowling average that puts just about every other wrist spinner to follow him to shame - and his f/c record is frightening. To think they are not in the same league as Warne and Murali reeks of ignorance.

[Mr. Wicket]

If Bradman had faced Ishant' date=' RP singh, Nehra he would be averaging 250 :cantstop:[/quote'] What if he faced Agarkar? :afraid:

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@professor and Salil............get back to you when i have sorted out rilley and grimmet........ but to be true whenever we have this disscussion whether in college our work.........i say.......before 1950 bradman was the best batsman and after 1950 it is tendulkar.........no one should compare them and no one should say who is the greatest....cause each great has chinks in theri armour.....i mentioned bradmans Sobers avgs lowly 23 in new zealand richards avgs 19 there sachin has had his chinks put up for scrutiny but one thing is that despite playing so much againsit so many teams for so mant years he doesnt avg below 35 anywhere and there lies his greatness

[vvvslaxman]

Just like you can't prove Tendulkar would average 99 in Bradman's era, you cannot prove Bradman would not average more than 55 in the modern era. Possibility of Bradman averaging more than 60 in this era is very very high compared to Sachin averaging 99 plus in Bradman's era. My simple reasoning is Tendulkar is yet to score a 300 in this era. His highest score is 241. We have Laxman, Mahela, Dravid, Sehawag having better highest score than Sachin.

[Guest Gunner]

And the only argument that you have for bowlers not averaging in the teens due to familiarity is fielding positions? Even if I was a rich man' date=' I wouldn't buy that.[/quote'] One of the reasons not the only one certainly. We are also talking about overall strategy which clearly you would have to admit is better today.

Perhaps' date=' he would not have averaged 99.94, but there is enough to suggest that he would have been the stand out performer in any era as he was in the era in which he actually played in.[/quote'] I don't disagree.